alt.hn

4/1/2026 at 1:18:51 AM

U.S. exempts oil industry from protecting Gulf animals, for 'national security'

 https://www.npr.org/2026/03/30/nx-s1-5745926/endangered-species-committee-hegseth-security

by Jimmc414

4/1/2026 at 2:58:51 AM

Of the 13 billion barrels of oil the US produces every day, 1.5 billion (15%) comes from the gulf. Despite this being more than enough oil (we are a net-exporter of oil), we import crude oil because our refineries need a different type of crude. The extra 15% of oil we are killing the environment over is for making a profit to export to other nations. It is not for national security.

by 0xbadcafebee

4/1/2026 at 3:28:09 AM

Guess which nation also has this heavy type of crude oil? Venezuela, which was invaded earlier this year.

If I recall correctly, the US used to have more of this type of oil, that depleted, so now they still have all the refineries on the east coast and need to import it.

by stingraycharles

4/1/2026 at 3:32:51 AM

It's millions of barrels per day not billions.

by reenorap

4/1/2026 at 1:17:33 PM

you're right, brain fart

by 0xbadcafebee

4/1/2026 at 4:12:28 AM

BILLION? My god, I didn't know we produced that much.

I've known for a while that our refineries are tuned to lighter "sweet crude" than what Canada or US produces, and long have I thought that a more benevolent, heavy-handed government should incentivize our domestic industry to handle our own oil for national security.

by unethical_ban

4/1/2026 at 5:15:38 AM

From what I understand, the US currently produces more oil than any other country has ever produced.

by stingraycharles

4/1/2026 at 4:31:30 PM

Its what moves the biggest military the world has ever seen

by Henchman21

4/1/2026 at 2:50:18 AM

2028: "To be secure as a nation we need to stamp out all dissent against the government and require all citizens to swear unyielding loyalty to the President."

by 0xbadcafebee

4/1/2026 at 3:05:56 AM

This is 100% coming barring a mass political rising

by kingkawn

4/1/2026 at 1:20:36 PM

yep. Tried to overthrow the government once already, with no consequence, so there's no reason not to try it again. This time he's way more entrenched/powerful. He & VP have said multiple times they want to remove all govt workers who aren't "their people", which would make a 1-Party state, aka authoritarian regime. Culmination of Project 2025 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Allegations_of_au...).

We're going to lose Iran war, which will put more pressure on "national security" & economy. That'll dovetail into 2028 elections. So he'll start a new war, claim there are extremists at home, start martial law, refuse to leave office. When that happens, same things that happen in every authoritarian regime will start. He's said publicly he wants to jail his enemies and curtail rights like free speech and journalism. It'll be extended into more fearmongering about minority groups to galvanize the base. Those big detention camps will get a lot bigger. Economy will be in the shitter, but that's fine, just blame it on "enemies", talk about "empire", and start a world war. Draft comes back, suddenly you have a huge infantry, lots of factory workers, staffed largely by political enemies.

by 0xbadcafebee

4/1/2026 at 3:55:35 AM

If AI takes all the jobs and consolidation of wealth continues it’s not an unlikely outcome. No income no spending = dead economy, poverty and starvation.

What are do people do when their government and capitalism fails them?

by wise_young_man

4/1/2026 at 5:17:05 AM

AI will perhaps take “all the jobs” in a far distant future.

Hopefully by then humanity has managed to get educated and learned to cooperate and share.

by Gud

4/1/2026 at 7:17:37 AM

It doesn't have to take all the jobs. If it can take most of the fake jobs we've invented over the years, it will be massively destructive to our way of life. It seems to already have that level of capability.

Funny that you assume education will lead to some sort of egalitarian society. What do you think the point of modern education is? We all take the course in evolution and natural selection, whether we want to or not. We all study history. We all fraternize and learn the little political games or we drop out. Some of us recieve a degree in hard knocks. Why shouldn't the educated be more cutthroat than the rest of us?

by Hasslequest

4/1/2026 at 1:26:07 PM

I didn’t make the point that education automatically leads to an egalitarian society.

I made the point that humans can be educated to care for one another(indoctrination if you will).

by Gud

4/1/2026 at 3:25:48 AM

Start a war. Call dissent treason. Crush the left.

Capitalism falls back to fascism to protect wealth, time and time again.

by creationcomplex

4/1/2026 at 7:22:19 PM

[flagged]

by CGMthrowaway

4/2/2026 at 4:49:21 AM

Why'd you leave out the "to prevent millions of deaths" part?

by 0xbadcafebee

4/1/2026 at 9:44:06 PM

I don't understand why this conspiratorial belief has persisted. The restrictions ended. They happened worldwide. They were clearly for the safety of the public and the functioning of the health system during a novel virus epidemic.

by Sabinus

4/1/2026 at 9:16:43 PM

What is the purpose of this comment? Genuinely trying to understand.

by datsci_est_2015

4/1/2026 at 7:38:02 PM

Except that was actually the policy all around the world and not unique to the US administration at the time. So not sure what your point is, time to move on...

by arnonymous

4/1/2026 at 2:15:38 AM

Wasn’t diversifying US energy sources also a national security issue? And wind energy was set aside because, wait for it, they killed animals. Birds to be specific.

by alanwreath

4/1/2026 at 2:34:07 AM

Remember when we destroyed Iran's nuclear program before we destroyed it last month? This administration is perfectly consistent with being inconsistent.

by helterskelter

4/1/2026 at 3:26:41 AM

I'm not sure about all wind energy, but offshore wind energy has been set aside because Donald Trump's Scotland Golf Club lost a lawsuit to an offshore wind farm a decade ago, and he appears to have a blanket opposition to the concept ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_...

(personal commentary/context: I want more energy production of any economically viable category: wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, natural gas, etc. I have no blanket opposition to offshore oil drilling or offshore wind energy)

by chao-

4/2/2026 at 5:40:19 AM

"National security issue" is the root password to the constitution and the rule of law. It'll get used whenever someone wants to bypass either or both.

by pseudohadamard

4/1/2026 at 3:00:25 AM

The folks in charge just want what they want without rhyme or reason. Mix a mind virus and joy of power together and get your eratic clown show. And many times it can go on a lot longer than you'd ever guess.

Unfortunately as a society we keep moving further and further away from the foundations of a functional society based on a representative government and considering the general welfare.

by Glyptodon

4/1/2026 at 3:29:12 AM

The rhyme and the reason are pretty much this:

- I was able to make money off of this

- This pissed off the people I don’t like

None of this should come as a surprise. The scoundrels got the mob in power (again) and they’re just going to keep breaking things and stealing the money until stopped or dead.

by linkjuice4all

4/1/2026 at 4:14:41 AM

The optimist in me thinks we will pivot from this dark timeline in 10-20 years. That even if we face violent internal strife, we will come out of this dark timeline eventually. Even the threat of omniscient AI surveillance is too much against the will of a free society.

I hope.

by unethical_ban

4/1/2026 at 3:25:46 AM

That’s not the point. The point is if you lose a presidential election to a grifter, most folks are screwed in almost unlimited ways. Don’t lose an election to a grifter. Be more practical when it comes to not losing an election to a grifter next time.

by steve-atx-7600

4/1/2026 at 4:09:54 AM

The way you phrase all that underscores the real problem: no one holds the Republican party accountable for their actions. It's the Democrats' responsibility to save us from them, and when the public screws up and grants power to the Republicans again, it's the Democrats' fault and not those who voted in the goons who come in and break things.

The Democrats are hardly perfect, and I wish we had something better to oppose the Republicans, but let's at least acknowledge who the real villain is.

by atmavatar

4/1/2026 at 2:18:16 AM

The thing says they can now dispose of trash and do loud things in the Gulf of Mexico (America haha). But what does that actually get us?

Googling and LLMing around it allows normal sea operations in the Gulf so drilling is possible etc. Interesting. So they’re going to try to get more oil out of there?

Can’t say I trust their competence very much here. It’s more likely to be a carve out for a friend than anything else and I’m pretty pro deregulation in general.

by arjie

4/1/2026 at 2:31:31 AM

This is more preemptive I suspect- 'they' have been reclassifying different species trying to get a bona-fide Gulf endangered one to use against exploration and production. Especially that one whale subspecies.

This kills that on multiple fronts.

by beerandt

4/1/2026 at 7:16:16 AM

I guess the whole Whales killed by wind turbines thing turned out to be concern trolling then. What a surprise!

> Fact-checking Donald Trump's claim that wind turbines kill whales

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66928305

by ZeroGravitas

4/1/2026 at 8:08:11 AM

No- making a fake endangered species to shut down operations that don't actually harm the species (endangered or not)...

Is hardly the same as objecting to activities that distress pretty much all animals in the vicinity long term.

by beerandt

4/1/2026 at 11:29:08 PM

> Is hardly the same as objecting to activities that distress pretty much all animals in the vicinity long term.

A big thing which distresses pretty much all animals in the vicinity is "shipping".

One other specific animal harm that wind farm get blamed for is bird deaths. Know what is responsible for more bird deaths? Skyscrapers.

The only way to not harm the environment (with current science) is a choice which is unsustainable, because the choice requires everyone everywhere to not only agree now but forever, and "forever" is really hard because anyone defecting from "degrowth" is necessarily stronger for that defection.

So yes, objecting to wind turbines on these grounds is absolutely concern trolling.

by ben_w

4/1/2026 at 2:11:09 PM

The snail darter play. Makes sense.

by renewiltord

4/1/2026 at 2:36:48 AM

The goal for these companies is not to extract more oil. This is the bait. They want to produce the same amount of oil they already do, but pay less for the expenses of doing anything to comply with regulations.

by coliveira

4/1/2026 at 2:41:17 AM

> But what does that actually get us?

Who said anything about "us". Every action taken by this administration is specifically for self-enrichment (directly or to cronies/patrons), the destruction of things that they deem "woke", and the punishment and persecution of their perceived enemies and non-humans.

I wish that was hyperbole, and that I could be proven wrong.

by pstuart

4/1/2026 at 4:04:38 PM

Yes, but this is for national (midterm election) security, so we need gas prices down before November.

by comfysocks

4/1/2026 at 1:51:30 AM

"Definitive of what capitalism is, this separation severely limits the scope of the political. Devolving vast aspects of social life to the rule of “the market” (in reality, to large corporations), it declares them off-limits to democratic decision-making, collective action, and public control. Its very structure, therefore, deprives us of the ability to decide collectively exactly what and how much we want to produce, on what energic basis and through what kinds of social relations. It deprives us, too, of the capacity to determine how we want to use the social surplus we collectively produce; how we want to relate to nature and to future generations; how we want to organize the work of social reproduction and its relation to that of production. Capitalism, in sum, is fundamentally anti-democratic. Even in the best-case scenario, democracy in a capitalist society must perforce be limited and weak."

https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/centerpiece/fall2...

by ZunarJ5

4/1/2026 at 2:39:13 AM

There are very few purely capitalistic countries. All countries that I can think of use taxes and regulations to influence market equilibrium. „letting the market figure it out“ is usually the political expression for „I like the current state better than what the opposition proposed“.

by adrianN

4/1/2026 at 2:22:41 AM

Do you really want to see votes on "exactly what and how much we want to produce" at each factory? Or what farmers plant?

by skybrian

4/1/2026 at 2:42:59 AM

Yeah imagine an economic system where farmers can’t even plant the seeds produced by the crops that they grow every year

by jrflowers

4/1/2026 at 2:45:50 AM

I'm in a massive grain belt ATM, as a sign of the times I can't place whether that's a reference to GM crops or the immediate issue of fuel and fertilizer.

by defrost

4/1/2026 at 3:29:58 AM

Fascism is the logical fallback to protect wealth from redistribution.

by creationcomplex

4/1/2026 at 3:12:26 AM

Capitalism (in the libertarian sense of the word) makes these "vast aspects of social life" off-limits to democratic deliberation in the same way it does for unrelated private corporations: without authorization from the rightful owners, it is supposed to be illegal (not to say that has stopped either).

She uses terms like "us", "we", "collective", but who are these? All the constituents, the people, in their totality, they are not, for people are not a homogeneous mass. In practice, it, along with democracy, just becomes a nice rhetoric device for stripping people of their rights.

Democracy was never really a good solution to an inclusive society-wide governance system. Most successful implementation even need to add limits to it to prevent the mob rule that's a feature to it. Some try to pretend it is anti-authoritarian, because the members get a vote. But that vote only matters when the voter is part of a majority. If they aren't, they might as well not even have it. That alone already creates a hierarchy. And it only gets worse: most people belong to minority of sorts, and they, by design, get alienated. This means that the doesn't really represent anyone... other than itself, very much like a corporation.

Which leads to the final point: capitalism (in the Marxist sense of the word) isn't antidemocratic. Democracy isn't in opposition to corporatocrocy, it requires a corporation large enough to own everything. Thus, dare I say, the democracy she seems to envision might as well be one of the forms of ultra peak capitalism.

by bit-anarchist

4/1/2026 at 2:01:38 AM

[flagged]

by dlev_pika

4/1/2026 at 2:58:12 AM

The fascism of Europe in in the 1930s was EXPLICITLY anti-capitalist. You can read tons of statements by various prominent fascists about how capitalism was the tool of the British empire and "globalists"(they often used a different word). They viewed it as separating the people from the land. Capitalists were not in any way fundamental to the rise of Nazism.

If you're on about Pinochet, he only embraced market reforms 3 years after coming to power and came to power directly by a military coup. Business leaders had basically nothing to do with it.

by ch4s3

4/1/2026 at 3:25:18 AM

Trump is also often anti capitalist, between tariffs and government shares in business. There is what fascists say and what they do, and industrialists were often very good Nazis.

by throwawaysleep

4/1/2026 at 2:05:50 PM

Lot's of political movements are/were anti-capitalist.

> industrialists were often very good Nazis

This is sort of banal. Lots of X "were good nazis". Where you could substitute scientists, elementary school teachers, trade unions, priests, bus divers, authors, political scientists, or farmers for X. It was a totalitarian society, everyone who wasn't on board was coerced by threat of violence to at least put on the outward appearance of being in support.

by ch4s3

4/1/2026 at 3:39:04 AM

They called the committee god squad?

by gpi

4/1/2026 at 1:07:05 PM

Yes, as it is only convened when the extinction of an entire species is on the table.

by tencentshill

4/1/2026 at 4:17:37 AM

Fishermen in the gulf were already struggling. Seems like a death knell to that industry

by bl4kers

4/1/2026 at 9:45:32 PM

Now it's evident that a Rep POTUS mainly surrenders to the military/oil regime while a Dem to the banks/funds one. Tech and movie industry usually follow and adapt to the leader.

by tsoukase

4/1/2026 at 3:26:24 AM

Note that they also increased the limit on Ethanol. Now, E15 is legal (instead of E10), again in the interest of “national security”.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-feds-plan-to-start-dilutin...

by SilverElfin

4/1/2026 at 9:23:25 AM

That's a hidden farmer's subside. It wil probably only benefit on kind of farm, the industrial one though, so I don't think electorally this is great.

by orwin

4/1/2026 at 2:08:08 AM

I always thought Trump was such a joke. Completely non-threatening, just a big personality who kept popping up here and there. I even bought a MAGA hat back in the summer before the election explicitly because I thought it was hysterical he was even running, and knew he would lose. I thought the whole thing was a gag, a joke, just like Bloomberg. It didn't even cross my mind that someone so woefully inadequate for the position, so abrasive, so criminal, so disgusting -- could ever get elected to the presidency. In the grand scheme of the universe, he was a nobody. His name would have died with him.

Boy was I wrong. His name will be studied for decades to come in all the worst ways.

by whalesalad

4/1/2026 at 3:20:39 AM

He definitely combines traits from a best hits list of notorious leaders, ranging from King George III, Kaiser Wilhelm, Santa Ana, Porfirio Díaz, and more.

And Americans are supposed to understand this, but largely don't. Kind of like lots of people love the founders in theory, but act like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have loved a theocracy. And basically don't know anything about stuff that would have influenced them, like the Commonwealth and the Glorious Revolution.

It's an absolutely literal Confederacy of Dunces.

by Glyptodon

4/1/2026 at 5:01:32 AM

Sorry, are you referring to the summer of 2015? Because purchasing a MAGA hat in 2025 for the lols is tasteless and shameful. I share your surprise generally, but at a certain point it’s just irresponsible to treat it all like a joke with no consequences

by ngai_aku

4/1/2026 at 2:07:04 PM

yes 2015

by whalesalad

4/1/2026 at 2:58:03 AM

[dead]

by s5300

4/1/2026 at 2:40:37 AM

[flagged]

by SanjayMehta

4/1/2026 at 3:28:21 AM

Last week he announced Iran had offered to make him supreme leader.

Truth is not even vaguely relevant to anything out of that man's mouth.

by creationcomplex

4/1/2026 at 2:48:05 AM

Honest is a word that can never be associated with the man, other than an antonym.

He's also a hypocrite (he wields Christianity like a weapon but is not a believer), talks about law and order but believes it doesn't apply to him, etc.

If I had to use one word in that vein it would be "clear". He makes it very clear who he is and what his values are.

by pstuart

4/1/2026 at 1:05:12 PM

He's an Honest Hypocrite - see what I did there?

by SanjayMehta

4/1/2026 at 4:19:15 AM

I dissent from your theory that all presidents are equally bad because they all have had some level of imperial streak to them. You notably left out Carter, who was imperfect but was by all measures a more decent and thoughtful citizen than Trump has been in his life.

I reject the notion that Trump is in any way honest just because he is openly corrupt. Accepting open corruption because one has seen imperfections in other characters is a path to simply accepting autocracy.

by unethical_ban

4/1/2026 at 1:06:42 PM

Carter? Who?

by SanjayMehta

4/1/2026 at 1:55:51 AM

Oppositional defiant disorder on a cultural scale. Liberals want to protect animals and shift to use of green energy; therefore the fossil fuel industry must be promoted at all cost (even when they don't want to be, as with Trump forcing obsolete coal plants to remain open) and endangered animals must be killed off.

by crooked-v

4/1/2026 at 3:07:16 AM

It often seems like the contemporary American "conservative" feels that in order to oppose progressives they must become regressives.

by kettlecorn

4/1/2026 at 3:23:09 AM

They are pretty much openly that way.

by throwawaysleep

4/1/2026 at 3:31:44 AM

I've noticed this for MAGA people I've met in real life but for the people actually making decisions, this administration (and their friends/political donors) has been making too much money for basic greed to not also be a huge factor.

by tdb7893

4/1/2026 at 3:34:54 AM

Nah, that's just bribes.

by marcosdumay

4/1/2026 at 3:17:44 AM

Let me rephrase that to provide a different connotation: Liberals want to kill economic progress to save a few animals.

Neither side is honest, it's just a matter of framing and perspective.

by glitchc

4/1/2026 at 3:09:30 PM

Do you realize that humans are currently triggering a mass extinction event that may very well threaten the very existence of our species within a couple generations?

by dpc050505

4/1/2026 at 3:21:39 AM

What would Trump have to do for you to not give him the benefit of the doubt from that point forward?

by JackYoustra

4/1/2026 at 2:30:02 PM

Okay, since you asked (unpopular, but I have karma to burn, c'est la vie):

This myopic focus on Trump ignores the real issue: Environmentalism is a secular religion, a theocracy, a dogma. Like any religion it employs circular reasoning to justify its existence, namely stemming from this assumption that nature is sacred, vulnerable and deserving of our protection. This faulty assumption is treated as a self-evident tautology and questioning it is shunned, the hallmark of any run-of-the-mill religion.

Environmentalism says it's not worth discovering fire because we would have to burn trees to use it. Think about this carefully: That's not a rational position but an emotional appeal. The thought process is "I would rather go hungry than hurt this poor tree," whereas that poor tree may have ruthlessly strangled the roots of nearby plants in its quest to thrive and grow. If you understand why this argument is irrational, you understand the basic flaw with environmental thought.

Extending that principle to the planet, we come to a foundational truth: Nature is a relentless competition between all organisms on the planet. This is a testable, provable hypothesis. Every modern day human can trace their ancestry to a person who out-competed other organisms. We are here today because successive descendants of our ancestors continued to pass a fitness test, surviving and procreating sufficiently to make us possible. Our continued existence depends on continuing that trend.

Aiming for sustainability hamstrings our ability to make progress and leaves us uncompetitive relative to our peers. Those who used fire out-competed those who didn't. Those who cut down trees to build farms, cities, countries out-lasted those who didn't. Those banded together to combine their ingenuity to get better, faster, stronger, heavily exploited their environment in the name of progress, are the ones ahead of everyone else. We did not start this trend, nature did. The rules of the game were established billions of years ago. It is sheer hubris to think we are somehow above or outside this meta-loop, a grand delusion that we are somehow masters of nature.

There is only one truth: Either we out-compete or we lose ground. Should we do the other things? Take care of the weak? The poor? The infirm? Sure, but if it comes at the expense of losing our competitive edge, then it won't matter what we do for them, because we won't continue to exist to keep doing it for them.

by glitchc

4/1/2026 at 2:45:09 PM

.... so you made up a definition of environmentalism so you could be against it?

environmentalism isnt circular. humans evolved to live and survive in a certain environment, and so we will be healthiest and happiest the better we ensure that that environment exists for us to live in.

some sample environmental works:

- making the river stop catching on fire so you can sail on it and fish in it - removing smog so you can go back to breathing - taking the acid out of the rain so it stops eating your car

environmentalism is a competitive edge in and of itself, but also is the foundation that the competition is built on.

by 8note

4/1/2026 at 4:30:36 PM

> Those who cut down trees...out-lasted those who didn't

Haiti and the Dominican Republic have something to say about that.

by triceratops

4/1/2026 at 10:54:01 PM

Even if you think environmentalism is stupid, that doesn't mean being anti-renewable or pro-coal makes any sense at all.

Renewables are also good economically, because they're... Wait for it... Renewable. That's a big deal.

Trump pushing clean coal and knee-capping renewables is bad for our economy. He is literally hurting the American people just to show the finger to liberals. If that sounds stupid, that's because it is.

by array_key_first

4/1/2026 at 12:30:50 PM

[dead]

by kaycey2022

4/1/2026 at 1:46:56 AM

[flagged]

by mrcwinn

4/1/2026 at 2:40:47 AM

[flagged]

by cynicalsecurity

4/1/2026 at 2:49:11 AM

No. It is like a drug addict doubling down in its obsession.

Oil is in the way out. Only countries addicted to oil don't see that. And the Americans are addicted to oil.

by diego_moita

4/1/2026 at 2:42:41 AM

[flagged]

by dboreham

4/1/2026 at 1:59:08 AM

[dead]

by crimshawz

4/1/2026 at 1:58:45 AM

[flagged]

by nba456_

4/1/2026 at 2:23:51 AM

The current administration has worked hard to reduce overall energy supply to enrich specific suppliers. There's a lot that can be done to increase energy independence, but increasing energy independence is clearly not a goal of the administration.

by stephenhuey

4/1/2026 at 2:05:37 AM

> Current world events

Let’s kill animals AND people to make oil expensive

by foogazi

4/1/2026 at 2:12:36 AM

Removing protection for these particular animals will no measurable effect on US energy supply or security.

by tzs

4/1/2026 at 2:50:33 AM

Let's raise energy independence by doubling down on oil, a resource we know will be exhausted sometime soon!

This is basically the opposite of what any kind of reasonable long term thinking would argue for.

by mcdeltat

4/1/2026 at 2:13:10 AM

We MADE the energy expensive.

by fellowmartian

4/1/2026 at 2:15:21 AM

So this specific person singlehandedly doubles the price of oil in a span of one week with his absolutly unnecessary reckless action but for some reason environmental regulations are the problem.

Seems about right.

by hsuduebc2

4/1/2026 at 2:17:49 AM

You don't live outside the environment. Educate yourself.

by michaelhoney

4/1/2026 at 2:17:23 AM

"National security" is becoming absolutely ridiculous statement over last years.

by hsuduebc2

4/1/2026 at 2:40:34 AM

It was never coherent.

by MiguelX413

4/1/2026 at 2:06:06 AM

we are already mostly energy independent. dont understand how dumping oil on gulf animals helps

by mtoner23

4/1/2026 at 2:22:21 AM

> we are already mostly energy independent

The US is the largest oil producer, but also still one of the largest oil importers, and oil prices are set by a global market, so the phrase "energy independent" is at best an accounting trick.

The only way we can get truly energy independent is by electrifying most non fossil fuel requiring end uses and supplying that electricity with renewables or nuclear (from domestically sourced uranium) - basically the direction China is going.

Then we could perhaps decouple a bit from the global oil market assuming our domestic supplies could be channeled towards things like plastics and jet fuel that are hard to replace.

Otherwise we are stuck with the global oil market and its price risks. Reducing animal protection in the Gulf won't change that because US oil producers won't drill unless the can sell at the global oil price.

by danans

4/1/2026 at 2:41:05 AM

The US should simply ban energy exporting.

by MiguelX413

4/1/2026 at 5:38:31 AM

> The US should simply ban energy exporting

Why would an oil company go through the trouble (and expense) of oil exploration and extraction if they don't have the right to sell it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?

by danans

4/1/2026 at 1:54:48 AM

Don’t say US. They don’t speak for us all. Only 49.8% of voters. Of which I hope a significant portion have seen the error of their ways come midterms and the next election.

Every day is a new embarrassment law or action like this for America until then. I’ve never felt lower about America in my lifetime. The hope I had, the pride I felt in America, is gone, chunk by chunk, piece by piece, every day.

by Mistletoe

4/1/2026 at 2:05:24 AM

Why? I don't see this pedantry for headlines for other countries like China did this, the UK does that. I think it's well understood that it's referring to the government, not a generalization of its people.

by sheept

4/1/2026 at 2:07:36 AM

My experience is the exact opposite. It is one of the most common points of pedantry I see in controversial political threads, across nations.

Not for no reason either. Turnout was 64.1%, so really it's the active decision of 31.9218% of voters (voting eligibles) culminating in this. Kind of a pattern with modern democracies if you check.

Not that passively endorsing this by not voting when the opportunity was there would be much better though.

by perching_aix

4/1/2026 at 2:19:29 AM

I hate this line of reasoning. People who didn't vote are equally guilty, because they did not care enough to show up. Or, maybe, they just didn't make it to polling station on time for some reason (having to pick up kids from school, or working second shift or something). You should always assume that the result of the elections is representative of what society thinks. That's how elections (and opinion polls, for that matter) work. Unless you have a really good proof why some minority group was actively excluded from voting.

by Detrytus

4/1/2026 at 2:55:16 AM

There is actually extensive mathematical history to fair voting, the output of which is super not in use, and of which I do find plenty of the alternative systems more representative:

https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk

I do think regular variety elections are generally representative though. I just also see value in keeping these asterisks in mind.

by perching_aix

4/1/2026 at 4:12:57 AM

I'm not sure I'd use the word "guilty" - that suggests some wrong doing.

However I agree with your premise - trying to remove abstaining voters from the math is incorrect. Abstainers are explicitly making their view known.

That view is "I don't care, but are equally good or bad". (Which in turn demonstrates a profound ignorance of what's going on - and frankly folk that unconcerned should probably not pick a side.)

I believe it's fair to say "America voted for this". America is a democracy and the voters spoke. Of course it's not unanimous but majority rules.

And it's not like his campaign was disingenuous. The man was on display, and most of the things he's done were signaled clearly in the campaign. (He's long been against foreign wars, so the Iran debacle seems out of character, but then again it's in line with his dictator instincts, and he desperately needs a distraction from the Epstein files.)

by bruce511

4/1/2026 at 4:15:56 AM

Many people don’t vote because it is difficult for them, they don’t see a difference in their lives because they get screwed one way or the other no matter who is in power, and if you’ll recall the last administration was complicit in genocide which is why I voted third party.

It’s true trump is bad but so is genocide. Really hard to make the case of the lesser evil when it’s just variations on top tier criminality. You have to offer something to voters.

by tehjoker

4/1/2026 at 6:42:54 AM

Yes many people don’t vote because of deliberately fettered access to polling and/or a generally correct understanding that the electoral college nullifies or makes redundant their vote in their jurisdiction. Your vote for a third party is a signal but essentially a qualified abstention. Your high horse however is so misguided and absurd- to suggest that you held a moral high ground because the Biden administration supported the Gaza genocide is flatly wrong. If you want to place blame for that administration’s actions, blame Citizen’s United, blame AIPAC, blame the DNC, etc. And write letters, protest, get mad. But facilitating the ascent of what is objectively, obviously, candidly worse to make that statement is insulting to the intelligence of anyone to whom you make the argument. Perhaps your vote was in a jurisdiction where you could assume the electoral votes would go to the Dems anyway, but that just makes it flat out virtue signaling. The left will continue to cut off its nose to spite its face to the peril of US democracy and world peace. You nailed em tho.

by tablarasa

4/2/2026 at 10:57:15 AM

Voted in PA. I suspect that regardless of who is president next, from either party, US policy will be changing towards Israel. The right, because they are anti-Semitic, and the liberals, because they lost an election over genocide. If the only thing the establishment wants from us is our votes, well they're going to have to earn them. They have no qualms about being transactional with other folks. They just get mad that we're transactional with them because we're supposed to behave.

by tehjoker

4/1/2026 at 2:14:54 AM

Trump's exceptional, isn't he? He explicitly only governs for his base, and he's explicitly against those outside his base. Sure, he won a slim majority, but it's understood that democratically elected rulers govern all their citizens, if only to prevent electoral violence.

by bediger4000

4/1/2026 at 2:03:51 AM

> Don’t say US. They don’t speak for us all. Only 49.8% of voters.

E pluribus unum

by foogazi

4/1/2026 at 2:46:25 PM

theyre literally your head of state, heads both legislative houses, and the court.

They're all of the positions for speaking for you, elected by the population of the US

by 8note

4/1/2026 at 3:18:35 AM

People who didn't vote voted for the winning party. That's true in every election.

by glitchc

4/1/2026 at 2:59:45 AM

Everyone who sat out the 2016 and 2024 elections is responsible for this clown getting into office.

*Democracy is not a spectator sport*. You don't get to complain about corrupt politicians and then go on to make excuses about why you can't vote. You're wasting your citizenship. Either go vote or move to a dictatorship where voting isn't a concern.

by waterTanuki

4/1/2026 at 2:29:07 AM

I mean, I didn't vote for Trump, but I think it should be the US. This administration represents us on the global stage. You may not like it, and it may not feel fair, but we will all have to bear the consequences of their actions. Every day something like this happens--and is allowed to happen--is an embarrassment to all of us.

by brendoelfrendo

4/1/2026 at 3:00:51 AM

Agreed.

I voted against Trump 3 times. But people outside of the US should definitely act as if they cannot trust the US. Because they can't. I mean ffs we collectively elected him twice.

by georgemcbay

4/1/2026 at 4:24:28 AM

As someone outside the US I certainly feel this way.

The underlying point is that the American public voted for this. They saw his first term, a million people dead from covid, and thought to themselves "I want more of that guy". And if they can elect this person, what might the next one look like?

In one short year every country on earth has put the US in the "unreliable trade partner" box. (Even Canada. Canada!). That damage will last for decades. The big winner here? China. They're hoovering up goodwill all over the place.

Killing USAid not only killed a major purchaser of US farm surplus, it woke up a lot of grass-roots agencies to the need to diversify funding. Lots of soft-influence lost overnight, and it's not easily coming back.

by bruce511

4/1/2026 at 2:05:40 AM

> One species of Gulf whale is particularly vulnerable. Scientists estimate that only about 51 Rice's whales are left on Earth, all of them in waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which the Trump administration has termed the Gulf of America.

I don't think the animals that may go extinct care about the distinction.

by surgical_fire

4/1/2026 at 2:18:53 AM

But we all do, and will impact us all directly or indirectly.

by tartoran

4/1/2026 at 1:59:54 AM

This is a good point. Instead of saying “The US” they should make up a number <50% and put that in the headline. That way it would be confusing and patently untrue

by jrflowers